IN years to come May 27, 2015 will be known by many as a very sad day for democracy.
It was not only the day that the Scottish Parliament threw out the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill but also that democracy failed ("Assisted suicide backers vow to fight on after defeat", The Herald, May 28).
With many others who sat through the debate, I was flabbergasted by some of the contributions made by MSPs who were against the Bill. It was obvious that they had either failed to read it or were incapable of understanding it. One MSP suggested that as money gets tighter the accountants in local authorities would put pressure on social work staff to coerce clients to go for assisted suicide; others suggested that doctors would be forced to participate in assisted suicide against their Hippocratic oath. All this was wrong and pure scaremongering.
This was a free vote for all MSP's and there was no party whip involved.
Democracy took a turn for the worst when in the last 15 minutes of the three-hour debate at least 30 per cent of MSPs decided to turn up and vote on this important issue without having been present to hear the arguments.
Although opinion polls put support for assisted suicide in Scotland at around 70per cent, the MSPs voted 36 for and 85 against. Is that what democracy looks like?
Rudi Vogels,
1 Barassie Drive, Kirkcaldy.
SO the Assisted Suicide Bill has been defeated. Such a cruel and bewildering decision after many days of media coverage sympathetic to voluntary assisted suicide will prove to be the day the Scottish Parliament became alarmingly and completely out of touch with the majority of the electorate. The parliament knows that many of those who are progressively terminally ill are living in poverty and cannot physically attend or afford the numerous costs involved in travelling to Swiss or European voluntary assisted suicide clinics.
The parliament has abandoned to despair those who are now suffering long-term progressive terminal illness and those who will in the future become progressively terminally ill.
Colin Campbell,
Flat 2, 6 Queensgate, Inverness.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article